Net neutrality: 5 questions about Internet's future

The future of streaming movies and television shows online could come at a cost – for both businesses and consumers.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Thursday plans to circulate a net neutrality proposal to ensure all Web traffic is treated equally. But one provision paves the way for Internet-service providers like AT&T and Verizon to negotiate with content companies like Google, Facebook or Netflix. They’d get a faster delivery lane, but at a price — and that could ultimately fall on consumers, too.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The chairman’s proposal has already caused an uproar among net neutrality supporters, and it’s set Twitter ablaze. But what does it really mean for the Internet moving forward? Where will things eventually end up? Here are some questions to consider:

WHY IS IT CAUSING A FIRESTORM? Wheeler’s proposal is the FCC’s latest attempt to craft rules aimed at guaranteeing an “open Internet.” Its previous effort at “net neutrality” was overturned out by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the commission’s legal logic was flawed.

The most controversial element of the new proposal — allowing the faster lane for content — drew an immediate outcry from public-interest groups.

“The FCC had an opportunity to reverse its failures and pursue real net neutrality,” said Craig Aaron, CEO of Free Press. “Instead, in a moment of political cowardice and extreme shortsightedness, it has chosen this convoluted path that won’t protect Internet users.”

The proposal bars ISPs from outright blocking of lawful content, according to the FCC. It would also ban Internet providers from engaging in “commercially unreasonable” practices when cutting deals with content providers and other companies, and establish a process for case-by-case scrutiny and resolution of disputes.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR BUSINESSES? The proposal gives Internet-service providers a new way to make money.

That could come in a couple of different models. The ISP could just charge content companies for faster service, or offer “sponsored data” programs that let businesses reach their customers more quickly.

Large firms like Apple and Facebook could choose to pay up to improve delivery of their products and services. But startups and small companies, which don’t have the resources to pay for the fast lane, would be at a disadvantage.

One prominent content company, Netflix, says it doesn’t like the concept.

“Netflix is not interested in a fast lane; we’re interested in safeguarding an Open Internet for our members,” said Christopher Libertelli, the company’s vice president of government affairs.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CONSUMERS? Web users could find they have different experiences depending on their Internet provider and what service they’re trying to access, creating a balkanization of the Internet, according to critics.

For example, Internet users may have better luck with Google searches and Amazon.com video if those major companies pay more for preferential treatment, but other sites may have slower delivery if they aren’t paying for the Web’s version of an HOV lane.

Content companies that do pay more may ultimately end up passing those additional charges along to customers.

Wheeler, however, rejected that scenario in a blog post Thursday, criticizing “incorrect accounts” that the FCC had “abandoned” its open Internet principles.”

“The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded,” he wrote.

HOW WILL IT PLAY ON CAPITOL HILL? For Wheeler, net neutrality has always been a lose-lose proposition. After the appeals court decision, the chairman had no choice but to wade back into an intensely political issue that bedeviled his predecessors — at a time when he aimed to focus on other telecom issues like spectrum auctions.

Wheeler’s approach — the least heavy-handed of the two options at his disposal — could keep some Republican critics at bay. It’s also unlikely to stir much protest from telecom companies, who can realize new business opportunities.

But it might not totally satisfy congressional Democrats, some of whom favored much stronger net neutrality protections. A few Democratic lawmakers — such as California Reps. Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey — wanted the FCC to duplicate exactly what it had in place before the federal court’s decision. They even introduced a bill in February stating their position.

Waxman, Eshoo and other top Democrats didn’t immediately comment. But Markey said he believes the “Internet’s rules of the road must not open up fast lanes to those who can pay, leaving others stuck in traffic.” The senator said he’s still reviewing the FCC’s new plan.

WHAT’S NEXT? The proposal is just that: a proposal. Wheeler sent a draft to his fellow commissioners Thursday, and each of them will get a chance to submit suggested changes.

The GOP has made clear it doesn’t like the concept of net neutrality rules at all, and Republican Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly are expected to follow that line.

The real action may be among the Democratic majority at the FCC, where Wheeler must contend with Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both are likely to push to make the final rule more robust.

A proposal is currently scheduled for a vote at the FCC’s May 15 meeting. Wheeler indicated Thursday he hopes to reinstate some net neutrality rules before year’s end.